This transcript was automatically generated and might contain errors.

[0:00] ⚠ About 3 minutes of audio could not be automatically transcribed.

[3:11] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Welcome. I am so grateful you're here. However, more than anything, I just need to hear your connection to the show, because we went back and forth a lot trying to figure out a show for you to talk about, and then here comes the dream that I didn't know was coming, which is that you have an undying love for 1776.

[3:31] Howard Sherman: I can't go quite as far as saying undying love, but I have a deep, deep affection for the show, and it stems back to, believe it or not, before I'd even really started going to the theater and was a little kid growing up in New Haven, Connecticut, which of course was home to the Schubert Theater, which in an earlier era was such the home of shows trying out before they came into New York. When I was seven years old, there was this show coming to the Schubert—now I would know that it was an out-of-town tryout—called 1776. Apparently, I was trying to figure this out. I must have already been reading the arts pages of the New Haven Register, because I learned about this show, and what specifically appealed to me was not, oh, I was a theater kid.

I wasn't a theater kid yet, because I barely knew what theater was, but I read about this show, about the early days of the founding of the U.S., and I was at age seven in the way that only seven-year-olds can be, obsessed, but in my case, it wasn't with dinosaurs. It was with Ben Franklin. Because Ben Franklin would be in this musical, I really wanted to see it. I remember, and my parents long remembered, my asking them if we could go, and I also vividly remember my parents saying no, and in trying to assuage my seven-year-old disappointment, said to me that they'd heard it wasn't very historically accurate, and so that was meant to explain to me why I wouldn't actually want to see 1776, and such was my obsession.

I have to tell you this complete digression, but my parents, to deal with my Ben Franklin mania, had mentioned to me that one of our neighbors in New Haven, literally a couple of houses away, was an expert on Benjamin Franklin, and that she taught at Yale University, which even a seven-year-old in New Haven knows what Yale is, and I remember that I would periodically pepper this woman with my seven-year-old questions about Benjamin Franklin, and it was just a few years ago that I suddenly got into my head the realization that, of course, I had no idea. She could have just been a history professor. What did I know? All I knew was her last name, because her first name was Mrs., and so I looked up Mrs. Lopez, Yale University, Benjamin Franklin, and lo and behold, she was a preeminent Benjamin Franklin scholar, who obviously was tolerating, perhaps with amusement, a seven-year-old's interest in this intellectual field of study that she herself had chosen. It's like Oscar Hammerstein and Sondheim, really.

[6:27] Howard Sherman: It's not quite there, but you're right. It was extremely fortuitous, and I did not go on to become a noted Benjamin Franklin scholar. I can't even fully remember Lin-Manuel's lyrics for the cut Benjamin Franklin song from Hamilton, though I love the song, but it was just a sidelight to this whole youthful obsession. Flash forward to years later when the film of 1776 would come on TV, and I'd be at home or visiting home as I got older. On the 4th of July, it was a holiday, and I'd plant myself in the den when 1776 was on and watch it. My parents would eventually realize they didn't know where I was, and they'd look and see me sitting in front of the TV, and they'd say, "What are you watching?"

And I would go, "Oh, it's a musical that I probably wouldn't like very much, because it's not very historically accurate," and I'm in there singing my head off. So that is my affection for 1776. It's not that I will say, "Oh, I think it's the greatest musical ever written," or that there aren't other musicals that I have deep emotional attachments to, falsettos being one, but it is literally my earliest moment of when I said I wanted to go to the theater. There is no memory and no experience in my databanks that say otherwise, and that is why you're tolerating me here on this program about 1776. So I am not a Benjamin Franklin scholar. I am not a 1776 scholar, but I am a fan, and it has a place in my heart as really perhaps the start of my interest in going to the theater.

[8:22] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: That's beautiful. I love having all types of guests on the show. Sometimes we have people who are original cast members, sometimes we have writers of the show, and sometimes we have fans, because the intent behind the show is to explore its emotional impact, its cultural impact, right? And here is a young kid, Benjamin Franklin. I can't get over it, because my first introduction to Benjamin Franklin is that Disney cartoon where he has the mouse who's telling him what to do. Do you remember that one?

[8:52] Howard Sherman: You know, I vaguely do. That may have been after my time for Disney cartoons, but I'm not thinking you're out of your mind for saying that to me. No, I mean, but Benjamin Franklin, what a fascinating guy. I mean, when you stop and think, and you know, jumping into the history, let's not forget that it was only about five years before 1776 that Benjamin Franklin had his own musical. So he exerted some force. It's always surprised me that there's never been a big screen Benjamin Franklin docu-movie. I know there was recently a miniseries, which I did not get to see, but you know, when you look at his influence, when you look at his inventions, his discoveries, his political and social impact, he's one of those people that you look at from that era and say, how did one person do this in an era when everyone wrote by hand, if nothing else, if nothing else, you know, but, you know, he is, as a teenager, you know, inventing the character of, what was her name?

Do-good, who used to write fake letters to his publication, his own publication. He was, you know, the phrase, a polymath. He was just an extraordinary man who functioned alongside many other extraordinary people.

[10:28] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: I was going to say, someone who is a supporting character in the play that we're discussing today, like that's how many really fascinating characters from history are packed into the show, and probably why it's, you know, it's lengthy. I had the film on yesterday and hearing you talk about being a child and plopping down in front of it, like, talk about a tension span that impresses me, sir, because most of my nieces and nephews can barely get through Moana, let alone, speaking of Lin-Manuel—

[10:57] Howard Sherman: Well, it wasn't on TV when I was a child, to be clear, because the film didn't come out until 1972, so by the time it found its way to television, I was already a teenager.

[11:11] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Well, okay, so even worse, even crazier. But it is a show and a story and a film that requires attention, both because of its length and what it's asking you to invest in. It's not, I mean, it gets, really, most of the musical numbers out of the way in the first hour, many of them in the first 20 minutes, and then it asks you to sit down and watch. It's a musical that becomes a play, interestingly enough. I was thinking about this in contrast, it's the flip side of what David Henry Huang did with Soft Power, which is basically a play that becomes a musical. This is a musical that essentially becomes a play for its last hour. It has a couple of interruptions, but not many. I guess between Peter Stone and Sherman Edwards, they never figured out how to do more to musicalize the debate, and Stone's writing was so strong, it carries you through that you don't sit there going, for God's sakes, get out there and dance more.

[12:32] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Which I felt in Newsies, no offense, I love Newsies. First time I've thought about Newsies in comparison to 1776, but please go on.

[12:40] Howard Sherman: No, but truly, there are a lot of shows written by very talented people, and I'm like, awesome, let's speed through this book scene, can we take out the pauses, can we get going to the next song? And 1776, the script, it has me in the palm of its hand. I'm leaning forward, and this is the Peter Stone of it all, and we'll get into it, but to write a show that we all know how it ends, and he did it with Titanic as well, we all know how this is going to go, and yet we're still leaning forward in our chairs, can't wait to see what happens. Can't wait to see, you actually sit there and worry that it's not going to happen.

[13:17] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: That it's not going to happen!

[13:19] Howard Sherman: In Titanic, maybe you sit there and hope, make them miss the ice cream this time. Maybe they'll be fine. But when you see and hear the depth of debate over what should or shouldn't be in...

[13:32] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: The Declaration of Independence, what can and can't be included, the personalities that play, that it actually drums up suspense about the signing of the Declaration of Independence is truly a testament to its construction. So 1776, as we've said, and for maybe some of our international listeners who don't know, it is about the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which was essentially ground zero for the United States finding independence from Great Britain in their colonial state. In order to talk about the creation of this musical, however, I want to first begin with Mr. Sherman Edwards. We've got a lot of Shermans today that we're going to be talking about. Sherman Edwards, composer, music and lyrics.

At this point, before writing 1776, he was mainly like a pop song guy, right? He'd written songs for C in September. He'd written for all kinds of people, Sarah Vaughan and Elvis Presley, if I remember correctly. But as the story goes, at least how I found it, is that he was working with collaborators doing the same old, same old, and at some point during the work session, he just got up and said, I can't do this anymore, and stomped out. Not stomped out, but felt this call to do something different. And in many ways, his collaborators said that that was the beginning of creating 1776. He wanted to add something more to his work other than just a great bop that's on the radio. So he, all intents and purposes, kind of begins this journey as a new Meredith Wilson from the Music Man, where he's going to write music, lyrics, and book all about the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He does so, and then the book has to be rewritten, I'm sure, for many reasons. Enter Peter Stone.

[15:31] Howard Sherman: Well, let's stop for a minute. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but he found a producer. Stuart Ostro found this script and said, there's something here, and wanted for it to go forward, but felt it needed something.

[15:50] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Sure. And now that something is, enter Peter Stone.

[15:55] Howard Sherman: Great. Yeah, 100%. So Peter, at this point, has he done Charade? He was already an Oscar winner. He had already done several very popular light thrillers, and starring Cary Grant, films starring Cary Grant and Gregory Peck, and very established as a screenwriter. He had only done two Broadway shows, Keen and Skyscreen.

[16:27] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: That's right. Keen was his first Broadway outing. And Keen was earlier. Keen was around 1960, but he'd done those two shows, neither of which were majorly notable, but was better known for his writing for the screen. It is interesting, though, that during the 60s, you could have a flop like Skyscreen, and it still wasn't that big of a flop. There were probably still a couple bops that people loved to sing in, and it would get you enough momentum that maybe there's some more work coming down the tube. Peter Stone brings quite a bit to the script, maybe more than anything by centralizing it to the Congress, keeping it in, I don't want to say one location, but more centralized in one location. He also brings in some female characters in the face of Abigail Adams and Martha Jefferson. What else do you know?

[17:29] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Honestly, I don't know. I was thinking as I was preparing to talk to you that I wonder where the Sherman Edwards papers exist, because it would be completely fascinating to read the version of the script that was handed to Peter Stone and see exactly what he restructured. But I don't know. I only know what is. I don't know what was. Whenever one is creating a project like this, you have to be able to answer, at least for yourself, the why. Why are we doing this? Why are we creating the story? Certainly, Sherman Edwards had left his day job, as it was, to create a show like this. I took a moment in preparing for this episode to ask myself, and to be completely honest, chat GPT, what is so special about the American Revolution?

If anything, what makes it different than any other revolution that's happened in history? Is it different than any other revolution? Can't we just quote 1776, or I'll have to say possibly paraphrase 1776, never before in the history of mankind has a colony broken from the main stem. A colony of people, number one, who were doing well, right? All of these people, this isn't a revolution out of poverty in a way that maybe we see in Les Mis. This isn't a revolution of indigenous people standing up to their colonizers. These are people from Europe who are actually doing pretty darn well, and who are able to spark a flame based a lot on ideological themes and beliefs, right? So much—

[19:24] Howard Sherman: Beliefs and freedom. So much of the show is about freedom and liberty and rights, and not since you want to start with the American dream. Well, this is the quintessential American dream. It is about the dream of America. What was this country going to be separate and distinct from Great Britain, separate and distinct from the British Empire? So even before the idea of what individuals might have, in some cases even materially from the American dream, it was simply the idea that people had inalienable rights, not unalienable as is argued in the show, but inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That fundamental idea, and the idea that the government would derive not from something that was coming from heritage, but coming from what the people chose to give in authority to someone to help guide them, was in its way a truly radical idea in its day.

And the challenge for the musical, of course, coming almost 200 years after the founding of America, was to remind everyone that these were not simply givens, but things that, in fact, were not being given at all, and therefore had to be taken.

[21:05] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: And I would even argue humanizing the situation even more, because when I look back at this particular Broadway season, which I've always thought, and many people have argued, and I'm not interested in having the argument to be clear, that this is the year that ends the Golden Age, right? That Hair comes in in 1968 and 1969, and in many ways, 1776 is the last musical of the Golden Age. That's something that is said, right? And so, I've always thought of this Broadway season as being 1776 and Hair, like these two diametrically opposed musicals. But when I sat down to really look at things this time, I actually see how they're holding hands quite a bit, because in a way, it feels like 1776 in an era where we're trying to remind everybody about imperfect humans that run countries.

I mean, certainly that's what Hair is about, right? We have created messes, and we can't pretend that everything that we've done smells beautifully, right? So, 1776 in many ways is taking these very lofty figures that have been on money and have been on posters in every history classroom, and giving them sex drives, giving them wants, needs, making them a little prickly, having them argue, fight, be hypocritical. And I think that maybe as time has marched on from its premiere, the argument could exist that 1776 is somehow an apologist musical, that it tries to put a little bit of frosting on the deep problems that were at its founding. But when you look at the imperfect people that somehow figured out how to get together, I think there's quite a bit there to chew on in a beautiful way.

[23:17] Howard Sherman: Well, when you mentioned the relationship between Hair and 1776, I come back to what is 1776 about and what is Hair about. And it is about freedom, and it is about liberty.

[23:31] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Revolution.

[23:32] Howard Sherman: I don't think that Hair was so much about a particular revolution, a political revolution, but certainly a cultural revolution, and a social one. And so, in that way, they are related, and I think it's impossible not to look at both of those musicals as products of coming out during the depths of the country's involvement in the Vietnam War, at a time when young people, young men in that era were subject to the draft, they were questioning the leadership, they were questioning why we were even over there. Deaths were piling up. We were seeing it on the evening news. It was the first war that came into people's homes. Again, as a child, I remember being aware of the Vietnam War, and frankly, being aware of the draft, and how many years was it before I might get drafted.

Literally, I can remember the newspapers publishing draft numbers, and people's numbers coming up, and that was a very frightening idea to me. But I think what's important to frame it in your term of, was this the last year of the golden age musicals? I don't think 1776 qualifies as the golden age of musicals, because it doesn't follow the rules.

[25:00] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: You show me another golden age musical that's 30 minutes without a single song.

[25:07] Howard Sherman: Right. It doesn't follow the rules. It doesn't really have that structure of, let's introduce the village, let's have the I Want song. Its romances are already established. The only women that we see are already married, so it's not a question of couples getting together. Who's going to end up together? The AB couple? You could argue that there's an AB couple in that you have the Jeffersons and you have the Adams, but ultimately, to what you were saying about what Peter Stone brought to the musical, even those romances are in some ways interruptions. They humanize the characters, but they're not central. This would not pass the Bechdel test in any way, shape, or form. It's a radical musical in a different way than Hair.

Hair was stylistically, socially, culturally different. 1776, as you point out, sought to humanize people who we were all taught in school. 1776 benefits from the fact that we already have some idea of the history, but its success, and its success continues to be whenever it plays, is that it delves into aspects of the founding of the United States that are glossed over in certainly the earliest of history and social studies classes in education. I think 1776 is not a jingoistic musical. It is not a reactionary musical. It is not trying to sell you on America as an untarnished ideal. In a moment where we're literally seeing history rewritten in order to conform to an idea of American exceptionalism, I wonder if someone paying close attention to 1776 might not find fault in it because it does debate.

[27:06] Howard Sherman: The thorny issues, at least to some degree, most specifically, slavery. It feels like a musical that we would produce, and then some audience member would be like, why did you change the script to be more woke? Well, exactly. I mean, I found one quote, and this is apparently a very close paraphrase of something Franklin himself had said, but as we sit here right now, with troops on the streets of Washington, having seen troops go into Los Angeles, threats of troops going into Chicago, here's a line from Benjamin Franklin: those who give up some of their liberty in order to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Now, if that doesn't seem like something that could be said about exactly what is happening today, if that doesn't seem like something that you could accuse writers or subsequent people doing revivals of inserting into the musical for political purpose, I don't know, of something more apt, yet it is not only from the musical, it's from Franklin.

And that's where 1776, for all of its formality, and I will say that it has a formal feeling, if not a classic musical feeling, does provoke a lot of debate that I think is incredibly valuable, and it's why the show holds up at 55, 56 years on.

[28:41] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Amen. Great job. Thank you for saying it so beautifully. You're exactly right, Howard. Let's look a little bit more at the season before we continue on, because as it turns out, and I had forgotten there were other musicals this season, there are other big musicals this season, but I just always forget about them. Promises Promises, also the season. Big, big hit. And Zorba. Was Zorba a hit?

[29:06] Howard Sherman: Zorba was a moderate success. I don't think it was, it was not a smash. It's coming out of cabaret, so like, you know, it's coming out of cabaret. It was Herschel Bernardi, who at that point had probably already done Fiddler on the Roof. So, yeah, there, I mean, I can't be sure. Somebody's going to come at me and say, no, Bernardi did Fiddler on the Roof later. I apologize if I'm mistaken. But, but yes, it was, it was coming out of greater successes. Let's just say that.

[29:36] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Absolutely. And, and, and by the way, no one come for him. Okay. We can't, we can't attack our own at this point.

[29:42] Howard Sherman: I don't know. Peter Felicia is listening to this program and is just going to call me immediately.

[29:48] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Peter, you can call me and come on the show. All right. So then the reason I remembered that there were other shows is because I saw how many Tony Awards 1776 won, knowing that it had won Best Musical, won three, which by the way, it probably would have won more if Best Book and Best Score had been separate awards at that point. It wasn't in that particular season, but you, sir, being someone who oversaw the Tony Awards for, you know, quite a few years, what else can you tell us about the Tonys at this time? There were some weird kind of rules.

[30:19] Howard Sherman: Well, I don't think the rules were weird. The rules were of their time. And I was one of the people involved in running the Tonys. I was certainly by no means the Uber voice of the Tonys. In fact, a lot of the administration stuff is run by committee. So I just want to be clear on that. But that said when we talk about the number of Tony Awards that 1776 won, there is an obvious gaping hole, which is it did not win Best Actor for William Daniels, who gave-

[30:50] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Who's playing John Adams.

[30:52] Howard Sherman: We know from the film, you know, and we know from the cast recording and we know from accounts of the show, you know, was giving the performance in that show. Star performance. Why did he not win the Tony Award? Well, he didn't win the Tony Award because in that era, to be considered Best Actor, you had to be billed above the title. If you were billed above the title, you could be Best Actor or Best Actress. If you were billed below the title, you were considered supporting. In the case of 1776, because no one in the show was a huge star, probably the best known person in the show was Howard De Silva playing, yes, Ben Franklin.

[31:33] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Ben Franklin.

[31:35] Howard Sherman: I think we could give a little counter in the corner, you know, how many times I managed to mention Franklin in here. But William Daniels was unquestionably the star of this show, but because the billing for everyone was below the title, he was nominated in Best Featured Actor and he declined the nomination. He was like, no, thank you.

[31:54] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: I don't know William Daniels. I don't know William Daniels. I feel like the William Daniels I imagine is the person I've watched him play over and over again in 1776, and he had the good sense to say, you know what? I'm not supporting this show. I'm the lead in this show. And so, denied himself what I would think would have been a slam dunk featured actor, but he wasn't featured. He was the main attraction.

[32:25] Howard Sherman: What hill are you going to die on, Mr. Feeney? By the way, for those who are Boy Meets World fans, he was the teacher in Boy Meets World.

[32:32] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: The funny thing about William Daniels is you can go through eras of how people know William Daniels because there's also the fact that William Daniels was the voice of Kit, the talking car, on the TV series Knight Rider with David Hasselhoff.

[32:47] Howard Sherman: Knight Rider? Yeah, that's like my older brother's era, for sure.

[32:52] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: You know William Daniels from that, and then between Boy Meets World and Knight Rider, he was on a very popular television series called St. Elsewhere and played a somewhat John Adams-like doctor. I think he was probably cast. So, William Daniels had this extraordinary career and may not be by any stretch of the imagination a household name, but all of that really was launched by his performance in 1776. That is what put him on the map. And John Adams really is the driving force of energy in the show. I mean, it is such an important role within-

[33:35] Howard Sherman: The show is structured that you are watching it from John Adams' perspective. John Adams is our way into the show. As we said, any number of people who were involved in this history could have been the lead person in a story about the founding of the United States of America. There could be a George Washington musical. There could be a Benjamin Franklin musical. There could be a John Hancock musical. We got the John Adams musical. You know, Hamilton is sort of proof of this, that there were all of these extraordinary people, each of whom had more than enough to validate their centrality in American history.

[34:24] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: It's so true because as I was reviewing the show, one of the gags, one of the bits in the show is that New York is constantly abstaining. I think John Hancock, who's president of the Congress at the time, says, “What is happening in New York?” This time when I heard it, I thought, “You know what's happening? Hamilton.” There is a universe where this is all happening at the same time. I'm kind of obsessed. It leads to one of the most reliable jokes, what you just raised, what leads to one of the most reliable jokes in the entirety of 1776, not a show known as a yuck fest, though it certainly has its laughs. The response to John Hancock's question is, “Have you ever been present at a meeting of the New York legislature?

They speak very fast and very loud, and nobody pays any attention to anybody else with the result that nothing ever gets done.” You say that line, certainly in New York City, then the New Yorkers laugh in recognition. If you say that line anywhere else, then everybody laughs because they want to laugh at New York. It's a pretty great laugh line in a show about the founding of the United States of America.

[35:37] Howard Sherman: We're not going to be able to talk through the entire show because, once again, it is dense and so many characters, all of whom I think are really beautifully drawn. They have more colors than I think you'd expect, but there are a couple that we should definitely point out. We got John Adams, of course, who begins the show with this monologue saying how ineffective Congress is.

[35:59] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: I want to come back to that monologue. I'm ready for that monologue.

[36:02] Howard Sherman: Great. Then we'll come back to it. Then we've got Benjamin Franklin. John Dickinson. Remind us who John Dickinson is.

[36:10] Howard Sherman: John Dickinson is the highly articulate, gentlemanly foe of John Adams, who does not stand for independence. He sees it as treason, basically.

[36:25] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: He sees it as treason, but Dickinson is such a great invention because it points out something that you were alluding to, that the characters are all shaped and rounded. There are no villains. There are no true villains in 1776, again, avoiding anything that would seem like the construct of a classic musical. Yes, there are antagonists, but they are antagonists with honor, even to the point that Benjamin Franklin points out that these are not nobodies. They are the cream of their communities who have been sent to represent them. Dickinson, along with Rutledge, are both intelligent men who have different beliefs than our heroes, the Adams, Franklin, Jefferson triad, but they're not bad men. They have points that are valid and, like you said, are representing communities.

Lyman Hall, in the very first vote to see who's for independence, who's not, he says, I find myself leaning more towards yes, but I know that I'm coming from a community that leans more towards no, and so until I really figure out where I stand on this, I need to go with the people that I represent.

[37:57] Howard Sherman: Well, again, if we want to relate to what's going on in the country now as we're watching these incredible machinations being done to alter congressional districts to advantage themselves, you do see these representatives struggling with the idea of are they there to represent what the people want, what they have a sense of, and there were no polls in those days, but sort of a sense of popular opinion, however that was formed given the media of the day, or what they personally believe, and that struggle over how they should vote. They're not doing it for the purpose of winning the next election because we don't even have this system of elections set up as we know them now, but just for the purpose of what is their responsibility as elected representatives in their states, or their colonies, I should say. I misspeak because they weren't even states yet.

[39:01] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Exactly right. Speaking of the colonies, there's one person that I will never forget what colony they came from, and that is, of course, Mr. Richard Henry Lee from Virginia. That is the song that gets stuck in my head and is also, as an educator, such a great point for how music helps us learn our history. Because of that song, anyone who sees the show will never forget that Richard Henry Lee is from any other colony besides Virginia.

[39:24] Howard Sherman: No, we get that, and Lee is actually one of the more fun characters in the show. While he does ultimately introduce the resolution on independence when he returns from the trip that he's setting up in the Lees of Virginia, that number is probably the most exuberant, light-hearted, funny, conventional song in the show.

[39:58] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Mm-hmm. Yes.

[39:59] Howard Sherman: And again, out of the way after 20 minutes.

[40:02] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: After the first 10 minutes. I remember my AP history teacher showing this in high school, and unfortunately, all we got to was hear Lee, there Lee, and I think everybody in the class was like, what are we watching? And then the bell rang, and then we were done. But little did they know how much good stuff was coming after it. Who else do we need to talk about? Of course, Thomas Jefferson.

[40:26] Howard Sherman: Well, Jefferson in the show is portrayed as the intellect and a man struggling with what he's written and what everyone else wants to do with it.

[40:38] Howard Sherman: As a good chunk of the latter half of the show is the debate over what should or should not be in the declaration if the declaration is to be voted upon and accepted in order to break or declare a break from Great Britain. And Jefferson stands in contrast to Adams in the sense that Adams is volatile and obnoxious and disliked, as we hear often in the show. But he's a man who breaks eggs everywhere he steps and doesn't care. Jefferson is portrayed as more deeply thoughtful and serious and created a document that really covered the waterfront on what it was to declare liberty and why it was being declared and watches it being chipped away at by all of these other men who could not have possibly written it themselves.

You have compassion for him as a man. You have compassion for him as a politician. You have compassion for him as a humanitarian. And for those of us who do it, you have compassion for him as a writer because he's being edited by committee. Riding by committee is the most frustrating thing you could possibly do. The other thing that Jefferson reminds me of is how young some of these people were. In a time where we constantly have presidential candidates who are nearing 80, if not in there, I love remembering that like some of this was begun by some pretty young guys. They were young guys, but it was also a different era. People matured earlier. People were seen as mature earlier. People lived much shorter lives.

And so they had to make their mark because they might not live long enough. Certainly, as it happens, Jefferson and Franklin lived good lives, and I think Adams lived out a pretty good long life as well, but that wasn't necessarily going to be the case for everyone in that era. They were able to see the fruits of their labor, realize that Franklin was at the later end of his life already, but they had to make their mark young. That's certainly part of what we see happening in Hamilton. His life may end. I should also get dings probably every time I mention Hamilton. Hamilton and Franklin. But what if Hamilton hadn't written like he was running out of time? Because he wasn't running out of time because he was dying. He wasn't running out of time for any other reason than that is what drove him, that he had to. And if he had gotten to that duel and not done all that he did, where would we be today?

[43:40] Agreed. Well, I'm just saying I'm from a generation of Hendricks where we're just being told to wait and I can't wait anymore. Well, I guess I come at it now. Well, all I can say is I have aged out of ever playing Adams, which was always a dream. I have fear that I have entered my Ben Franklin era. I think you would. Or Cesar Rodney or Stephen Hopkins.

[44:09] Howard Sherman: Stop it. You're not Cesar Rodney.

[44:14] Howard Sherman: Okay. Speaking of Thomas Jefferson, we can also talk about the ladies who are in the show, which once again, like you said, it wouldn't pass the Bechdel test. They're really there to facilitate other sides of their male counterparts, but have gorgeous songs in the process. I think are able to bring exactly what they're intended to, which is a fuller, rounder view of titans of history. We have to talk about Rutledge from the South. It does feel one of the great things that they're able to say without really saying is the prickliness that was present then and is still present now about North versus the South. The South being the ones to remind us of the reality of economics and choices we've made and the Northerners to point our fingers and say, how dare you do such things?

I don't think 1776 would still be done if it did not include such an anguished debate over whether or not slavery would be abolished by the Declaration of Independence. We may not like the decision that was made, and it remains the source of so much pain for so many people, and rightly so, but the show at least acknowledges in a major way the struggle over slavery as part of the foundational problems of the United States, that it was never going to be a perfect country from the get-go, and that debate, which fuels so much and fuels an extraordinary song. Again, I'm going to keep harping on this idea of this was not in any way a Golden Age musical because its 11 o'clock number is ♪ Musical number ♪, which is a song about the ways in which the North was complicit in the slave trade.

Now, that is a far cry from Sit Down, You're Rocking the Boat. And ultimately, an essential argument being made that even the people we see as our heroes in 1776 are flawed and unable to achieve all that they want to achieve, it also suggests that, and unfortunately on this issue, I wish desperately that they had won, but just because you can't get everything all at once should not negate the value of moving forward, at least in part. It's not to say that compromise is what we seek, but compromise at times still allows us to move two steps forward.

[47:17] Well, that leads me to, of course, we're talking about, like you said, this debate where in the Declaration of Independence, there's a phrase talking about liberty and freedom for all, and of course, that then brings up, well, what about all of the people who are currently...

[47:34] Howard Sherman: ...enslaved, and do they receive the same rights? And there are people like John Adams who say that, absolutely, this is the moment. This is the moment when we make sure that those liberties are protected and valued and brought to everyone. And then there are people like Rutledge who are reminding everyone, no, this country is founded on an economic system that would absolutely crumble without slavery. So what do you want? Do you want a country that will continue, or do you want a country where everybody's free? And that's a very difficult decision, and ultimately, in order for everyone to sign the Declaration of Independence, they take that out. As I've thought about it, though, over the past couple of weeks, I've wondered what would have happened in a revisionist history sort of way.

What are my guesses of what would happen if this hadn't been signed, if we had continued under Britain's rule? And I think there are a couple of different things. I look to Australia, who eventually was given their independence from Great Britain. Maybe that would have happened, but at the forefront is always going to be this issue that had to be addressed. And in some ways, I wonder if Great Britain was grateful and delighted to be out of it, because there was always going to be this sticking issue of when will slavery end, and when it does end, what will it do to the American economy? I don't think I'm qualified to do the alternative history version of what would have happened.

[49:15] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Me either. It doesn't stop me, though, Howard. I stand by the idea that it was a scar on America from the moment it was introduced. I'm not convinced that the economy would have collapsed without it. I think the economy would have simply grown in different ways. We can't know for sure, but I don't think there's any scenario under which it was not an absolute stain on this country, and one that continues to be a deep and profound scar that is in no way healed. And despite the efforts of the present administration to want to diminish the kind of pain it caused, it is our shame. It is our national shame. It is the original sin from which America was founded, so I can't begin to imagine.

[50:17] Howard Sherman: No, and no matter how this goes, this will always be the issue that affects everything.

[50:26] Jeffrey Scott Parsons: Everything.

[50:27] Howard Sherman: And again, I don't think 1776 would be done if it hadn't grappled with that issue. And having mentioned why the musical is still done and why the musical still has value, I want to bring up another production that I saw that I'm quite certain very, very few of your listeners, if any, had a chance to see. I saw 1776 done by incarcerated men at Sing Sing Prison.

[50:58] ⚠ About 3 minutes of audio could not be automatically transcribed.

[54:10] Howard Sherman: And spilled our blood. And still this Congress won't grant any of my proposals on independence, even so much as the courtesy of open debate? Good God, what in hell are they waiting for? Now, why did I just do that, aside from the fact that I never had the chance to play Adams? I did that because, and all reasonable offers will be accepted, absolutely. The reason I did that is in a few short sentences, Peter Stone managed to define the character of John Adams as a man who is impatient and angry and not willing to stand for the status quo. He set up exactly where we were in time when the show begins into understanding where in the process of seeking independence we were. It's funny because of the three or more become a Congress.

You want to get an audience on your side, make fun of lawyers, and then make fun of politicians. Are you kidding me? And that is simultaneously the overture and the opening lines of 1776. And then they launch into the song. But we already know so much with an incredible economy of construction that it remains to me just a brilliant, brilliant piece of writing. And whether it's Stone or whether it's Edwards or whether it's both of them, I can't answer that. Someday, I'd love to know. It sure works like gangbusters. Probably 60 words.

[55:54] Peter Stone: That's beautiful. And I hadn't even considered that it's not a song, that it's that effective without even a note of music. But then the introduction of Sit Down, John, right after it, is so instrumental to creating maybe the one thing that the monologue doesn't, which is setting. Where are these guys? How hot is it? How annoyed are they? You are laying the foundation of all of these details that are so informative to what's about to happen.

[56:25] Howard Sherman: And you are laying the foundation for what is central to the success of the show, which is that this is going to be a show about debate. This is going to be a show about argument. This is going to be a show about ideas, in some cases opposing ideas, being played out before you. So the song does set you up for all of those songless scenes two hours later, where it's just about what are the points to be made and where is it going to stand?

[56:59] So true. 1776 has this emotional truth that creates a feeling even with the dense and like formality that you mentioned earlier. There is this accessibility because of the humans and the emotional stories that you see. We mentioned Mama Look Sharp at the beginning of the second act. And this is a beautiful ballad that reminds us that people are dying, right? That for all of this debate, it isn't necessarily just about ego, though there are quite a few egomaniacs in the Continental Congress at that time. There are people whose lives are being lost. In the case of the song, it's a young boy who has just lost two of his best friends, and yet is still continuing to be the courier and doing his job.

So I find it so, like I said, relatable. It's a really, really sharply constructed show, and I dare say it didn't create a spate of shows imitating it. I don't know that you can really look and say, oh, well, 1776 was a hit. It was certainly a hit in its day, but it didn't unleash a raft of other shows like it. And again, you really have to come all the way to Hamilton, and Lin-Manuel has acknowledged the influence of 1776 on Hamilton, even right down to having a sit-down John Lyne in it, which would come from nowhere but 1776.

[58:32] As I talk about political musicals, I want to bring up one more because I think it's another one which would not exist without its awareness of what 1776 achieved, and that's Suffs. What's fascinating about Suffs is Suffs is a show that I saw when it first premiered off-Broadway at the Public Theater, and then saw it a couple of times when it moved to Broadway. Suffs underwent a very significant transformation. At the Public, it was an admirable musical which gave us a lot of history that we didn't know about the suffrage movement and the women behind it. When it reached Broadway, it had been significantly revised, and it really focused more on the core of what was being achieved, the goals and the emotions of the movement.

It gave us less history and gave us more aspiration. In doing so, the revised version was, and I can only say this because I am a fan of it, it gave us a greater success than its earlier version, and I think it connected with audiences more successfully. And I think it's absolutely, you can look to Hamilton, you can look to Suffs as fascinating companion pieces, both thematically, structurally, and historically in terms of musicals.

[1:00:06] So I wanted to shout out Shaina Taub, who I think did amazing work, and as you say, you talked about Sherman Edwards being Meredith Wilson-like in doing book music and lyrics. There are very few people in the history of musical theater who have successfully done that, and both Shaina and Lynn fall into those categories.

[1:00:27] That's interesting, the kind of talent that people have to possess in order to create a musical that's about American history. This has been so wonderful. The final thing that I wanted to discuss is, of course, the ending, which is that the Declaration of Independence is signed. They come to a place where they agree to sign it. Infamously, they recreate this painting, this picture of everybody in Constitution Hall. I think the question that I have, in a time where I see so many of us not knowing how to disagree anymore, do you think 1776 is a good example of how to debate?

[1:01:14] Howard Sherman: Yeah, I would say it's absolutely an aspirational goal, because even when there's impatience, there is ultimately respect, and people may walk out, but they come back. They're all willing to stop and laugh every so often, because there are jokes made in 1776, which are the characters making a joke in the context of what's being spoken, not a joke just for the audience, but a joke for one another in that room in Independence Hall. So yeah, I wish we could still have political debates over issues that come from a place of fundamental respect, and also respect for the office that they represent, that they are not there just to say whatever comes into their head, and they're not playing to the masses. They are there to achieve higher goals.

[1:02:13] I wanted to say something that maybe you'll stick in somewhere, and maybe you won't, but as much as we talk about Sherman Edwards and Peter Stone, I think something needs to be said as well about the original director of 1776.

[1:02:26] Peter Hunt, yes, of course.

[1:02:28] Howard Sherman: Because Peter Hunt figured out how to do this show without forcing more on it that was conventional, that he was willing to let these things play out, that he felt that he could stage it in a way where he didn't need to break up a 30-minute segment of the show with songs. I think his willingness, his ability to do that and keep it moving and keep a show of argument, I think is an enormous credit. And when we see the film, about which I love because it's a record, it maybe at times feels a little bit stodgy, but at least we do get to see, given that Mr. Hunt directed the film of his own Broadway show, a relative rarity, we do have a record of what it was close to like in the theater back in 1969, 1970, and I think that's quite remarkable.

I just think we should never forget when we talk about the creation of shows any more than I wanted to forget the producer who first plucked up Sherman Edwards and said, I think we can do something with this Stuart Ostro. We must give credit to the original director who created something so indelible. And I'll mention that possibly the very first time I ever saw it staged, I have to think through the timing, was a production at the Williamstown Theater Festival in the late 80s directed by Peter Hunt, who used the original design and some of the actors, not many, if any, of the original cast, but actors who had appeared in the show in the original Broadway run. I had a conversation when I was working on my book with his niece, Helen Hunt, about the Sing Sing production, and she regretted that she had not known anything about it. Again, not that it was widely publicized, but she talked about how much she wished she had been able to see that because, of course, of her uncle's work on the original production.

[1:04:40] Peter Stone: Beautiful. Thank you for reminding us of that. As always, if you have recommendations, just like our friend Bruce, who requested 1776, please email me at amusicalpodcast.gmail.com. It may take me a couple of years, but we'll get around to it because I've got to find great guests like Mr. Howard Sherman. Remember to join us on Patreon! for bonus episodes, for polls, for essays, all sorts of things. I love our community over there. We're having a great time, and we just began Dreamcast. Were you Dreamcast? In which I have somebody come over, usually a guest from our Patreon subscribers, to discuss what their Dreamcast of a musical would be. Super, super fun. More than anything, just know that I love you being a part of this wonderful podcasting community, so follow us on social media. Share us. Let it be as big as it can be because I love the community to keep growing.

[1:05:36] Howard Sherman: What do you want to plug? What do you got coming up? Tell us about books.

[1:05:42] Howard Sherman: I can plug the fact that I'm now doing some writing for Broadway World.

[1:05:43] Peter Stone: No way! That's wonderful.

[1:05:51] Howard Sherman: So you can find my column there every other week, and I'll continue to be doing some features for the stage in London, where I've been writing for more than a decade. I've had a conversation with my editor about some book ideas. I now have to buckle down and pursue one of them, since he sort of liked them all.

[1:06:10] Peter Stone: Wow. I mean, come on. That's great. Also, so much work.

[1:06:11] Howard Sherman: Yes. So much work.

[1:06:18] Howard Sherman: Yes. I do think back on the depths of my despair when I was writing the first book, but now that I've done one, I have more of an idea, and I want to do something different, but it'll still be about theater. I don't know anything else.

[1:06:28] Peter Stone: That's wonderful. Is there any way that we can follow you? You have a great website.

[1:06:35] Howard Sherman: My website is HESherman.com, and I am H.E. Sherman on most socials except for TikTok because I don't dance.

[1:06:41] Peter Stone: Yet.

[1:06:48] Howard Sherman: Oh, no. I think I've made it this far in life and acted in enough musicals in my youth. I don't even think Jerry Mitchell or Susan Stroman could do something with me.

[1:07:00] Peter Stone: We're producing 1776 again. You will be Ben Franklin, and we'll add a dance break into Richard.

[1:07:00] Howard Sherman: No, I just want to interpolate Lin-Manuel's song. I don't need a dance break. I just want to interpolate that great song that he wrote and that the Decembrists did the music for, and I would like to just be able to sing out that I am Benjamin fucking Franklin.

[1:07:17] Ah! Everybody, thank you for listening, and remember, Benjamin Franklin.